Fostex Enclosure Designs
I've been a lurker here for a little while. I am just wondering why there are so few people building the 'recomended' enclosures that are available form the Fostex site. They seem pretty well thought out, yet DIYers still build other enclosures. I was thinking of building a Frugel horn, or even a 'spawn' type horn. Then I see the enclosures designed specifically for the Fostex drivers and wonder which would be better?
They seem to be of similar difficulty, yet the Fostex enclosures seem to have front opening designs, while the Frugels have rear opening and need corner loading.
Just wondering if anyone has compared any of these enclosures, either IRL, or emulation.
Thanks for your comments,
The Frugel-horn etc are also designed specifically for Fostex drivers...
Why not too many building from the Fostex plans? Because although they can sometimes be OK, they're rarely great & don't get the best out of the drivers. Keeping with the Frugel-horn example, it's rearward firing because it's a corner-horn design. It maintains horn loading down to a lower frequency (remember -with the deflector & corner loading the mouth is actually 8 times larger than the physical cabinet dimensions). As such, it has lower distortion than the factory box, which has to rely heavily upon QW action and suffers from more response ripple & increased driver excursion.
I first built a Fostex based design (the FE166's in BLH) and found it adequate untill I discovered this forum, I have since built the Curvy Changs and found them a much better design. And i am going to put my FE166's in a new cabinet soon.
The main advantage the specific designs have for Fostex drivers you will find around here is that they have been designed by people who dedicated to getting the best sound out of the drivers, are built by equaly driven DIYers and are discussed and tweeked by a collective of again dedicated and knolegable people.
This collective of experience and knowledge gives us as DIYers an advantage as we can pick a cabinet/driver combination to suite our tastes, that we can tweek to get our desired results, and are not restricted by commercial restrictions.
Fostex are to be applouded for providing basic designs to encourage people to build there own speakers IMO, but as I discovered there is so much more that can be achieved.
Collectively, we have been able to bring the recommended Fostex designs a step further. Modern software, dedicated designers, willing builders and critical listeners provide the basis for what has, imo, provided us with amazing sound in our homes. Fostex deserves a lot of credit for providing interesting alternatives for their drivers. Without them we would have nothing to compare the newer designs. It is a perfect example of how sharing ideas and experiences have benefited all of us.
Btw, my Fostex 127e on cheap solid state Onkyo receiver is covered by a veil of grunge thru the mid and treble. Tubes are more better.
The Fostex designs are on a different operation principal. They are basically staged expanding TL actions. Nothing wrong with this as you can build a set with 2 saw horses and a hand saw. In some designs they work very well.
The problem is , if you approach the question from a higher plane,they are not that efficent over a great BW.
To achieve the maximum potential out of just two (2) different drivers took me around two years of study and tests and data accumulation. I am not putting down the Fostex engineers at all, its just sometimes you have to evaluate every action and the cause/effect. I have been working in the application of higher frequency sound waves over 40 years and even then i "borrowed" math and operational principals from ppl (and i still make mistakes, i am human ,despite what my boss thinks).
Asd Sir Godzilla stated its a good introduction. But IMHO its not the answer.
|All times are GMT. The time now is 02:31 AM.|
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio